Significantly, the NIC 2020 Project employed information technology and analytic tools unavailable in earlier NIC efforts. We created an interactive Web site which contained several tools including a "hands-on" computer simulation that allows novice and expert alike to develop their own scenarios. This "International Futures" model is now available to the public to explore.

In perhaps a troubling sign for the NIC, when I clicked on that link all I got was a "Service Unavailable" message.

This glitch does not mean the whole project is without interest. For example, check out this graph:

From what I can divine, the graph's y-axis is equal to (total # of muslims living in the EU)/(total # of ethnic Europeans living in the EU). That metric is a bit unusual -- ordinarily one would show (total # of muslims)/(total # of people -- including Muslims). The labeling of the y-axis and the unusual NIC metric suggest could lead a casual observer to conclude that there are more Muslims in Europe than there actually are.

As for the trend lines, they look reasonable, given the low fertility rates of "indigineous" Europeans and high fertility and migration rates of Muslims.

It's food for thought on the method as well as the implications -- the method being to just take the current trend, extend the line out 20 years, and wiggle it a bit at the end to produce three scenarios. So of course they end up with a huge ratio of Muslim to ethnic European. But there are so many other variables over that 20 year period. Note also that the basic data on numbers of Muslims can be very unreliable -- for instance, everyone's favourite factoid that France is 10% Muslim is an educated guess, since the census does not ask a religion question.

The Y-axis can only be percentage which means that while France has the highest percentage of Muslims at maybe 10% the entire EU has 15%. Gotcha. I guess we can call it CIA-math. If they can get it so wrong on something like this it really is then no wonder we had people risking their lives looking high and low in Iraq for WMD's for close to two years.

This chart is a wingnut's wet dream, we will be seeing it all over the righty blogs tomorrow. Europe, going to Allah in a handbasket!

The vertical axis is a little confusing and non-intuitive, but still moderately straightforward. Rather than a percentage of population, the y-axis shows the ratio of Muslims in Europe to the number of ethnic Europeans in Europe (as a percentage, obviously, though it's not accurately labelled that way). So, for example, if the ethnic breakdown in Europe was, say, 80% ethnic Europeans, 10% Muslims, and 10% other, the ratio of Muslims to ethnic Europeans would be 10:80, or 12.5%.

This is not surprising. To the degree that this increasing population of Muslims comprises radical Islamicists, the EU is in for very troubled times in their future. If their track record on dealing with Neo Nazi groups and with Anti-Semitism is any indication, their success in addressing this problem will be equally dismal.

This graph is "food for thought" if and only if you consider that the Muslim faith is somehow consequential in political and social terms. It seems to me that it is. Then, if that is correct, the question is not so much how you look at the demographics of the future; it's really how the Muslims look at the implications of continued emigration into Europe and the fecundity of Muslims once they arrive. Are they up to something? Why are they moving to a region in which they will be the minority, given the teachings of their religion, and the attitude they have toward those who do not submit to the teachings of their prophet? Can we generalize, or is this just people moving for individual reasons, without any shared intentions? Can we infer that their motives for relocating are the same as those of, say, Slavs or Poles or Chinese or Mexicans? What implications does this have for Western Civilization? Is it paranoid even to ask these questions?

We live in interesting times. I'm glad I won't be around to see the consequences of this migration, and I'm sure the Muslims are glad for that, too.
I guess that makes me a bigot.

Still not labelled usefully. Do they mean recent Islamic immigrants? Are they counting Albanians? Bosnians? Both have been Muslim for centuries, and are at least as ethnically European as, say, the Magyars in Hungary. So which pile does a Bosnian go into, Muslims or Ethnic Europeans?

The distinction between "estimate" and "projection" isn't obvious, either. It's not standardized graph-speak.

According to Ross Douthat in this month's Atlantic, the numbers read as follows:

15.2 Muslims in the fifteen countries that joined the EU prior to 2004.

The percentage is smaller when you factor in the Eastern European countries that have joined since then.

Even the addition of Turkey's 68 million muslims would bring the total to only 15 percent of the overall European population.

(Thats the good news)

Birth rates have fallen well below replacement levels in a number of European countries. European population is expected to continue falling from 728 m in 2000 to 630 in 2050.

The Muslim population is the exception - by 2015 when Europe's population will have fallen by roughly 3.5% of the present level, the Muslim population is expected to have doubled at the least (and that assumes no increase in the conversion rate to ISlam in europe).

Lots of good stuff in this and "The Widening Atlantic" by Niall Ferguson in this same issue...

The Leftists in the USA are not shy about deriding the effect that Christianity - especially evangelical Christianity - has on our politcs; they think it has a HUGE effect and a BAD effect.

If that is POSSIBLE - if religion can inform politics here in the USA - then it must also be possible in the EU. THEREFORE, the Leftists MUST accept that the trend in the graph presents a real potential for change.

I wonder what the Left thinks that change might involve? Do they think it will make the EU more tolerant? More libertarian? Less mysogynistic? Less anti-Semitic? More competitive in commerce and the sciences?

OF COURSE IT CANNOT MEAN ANY OF THOSE THINGS.

It can only be a harbinger for bad things, for things getting worse than they are.

Obly two leading mainstream politicians in the EU seem to get this: Nicholas Sarkozy and Gert Wilders.

I hope they are brave enough to lead a counter-movement that can deal with this INVASION in a way that is concistent with Western values.

Either they do, or the Eiffel Tower will be the Muezzin for the Mosque de Notre Dame!

More reason not to be too concerned about the current overheated performance of the Euro. Assuming even a moderate increase of the influence fundamentalist Islam in European political life does not bode well for future economic propsperity. Religious fundamentalism and economic propserity are mutually exclusive, and always have been.

I argue that ALL Islam is 'Fundamental' Islam.
I would also love to see a like graph of Fundamental Christianity in the U.S., which I contend has the capability to be similarly destructive to civilization as we know it here in the States.

As first generation immigrants to the US, we are just the latest in a long line now stretching back for centuries, happy and thankful that we got ourselves and our kids out of the mess which is Europe.

Don't forget that this is how the US began in the first place! 'Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose...'

I tend to believe this graph, regardless of the validity of reasoning behind it. Consider this: Ethnic Europeans are not reproducing themselves for a lasting society; the fecundity of Muslims will have them vastly outnumbering Europeans in the future. A sobering thought.

A ratio is a comparison of two numbers. The vertical axis only shows one number. Surely over time the number of Muslims in Europe is going up and therefore we should be approaching (but surely never reaching) a 1:1 ratio, inother words an equal number of Muslims and eithnic Europeans. Right now the ratio is probably 1:20, that is one Muslim for every twenty ethnic Europeans. Europe is a very secular society and over time, third generation Algerians will probably have rates of secularization as high as those of ethnic Europeans; is anyone studying that aspect of the equation?

Many ignorant Americans in this comment section. But you're excused: many Europeans are just as ignorant, although they're waking up. Whatever the merits of these particular numbers, something like this is indeed happening. And no, third generation muslim immigrants are not going to be secular, pace some comments above. All the evidence is that second and third generation muslim immigrants are much more religious than the first generation immigrants - and much more so than the people in the countries their parents or grandparents left. It's a matter of identity formation: the immigrant children clearly see they're not European, so they rebel by embracing an extreme form of their ancestral religion. Meanwhile, the people in the countries their families came from are modernizing... The West is in for a ride, but the odds look very bad.

Another thing that is provided on the chart is the definition of ethnic european. It presumably is less than the non-Muslim population owing to other immigration (non-Muslim Asian, Indian, African etc.). Taking this into account would increase the Muslim to ethnic European ratio.

Does this graph presume the introduction of Turkey into the EU? . . Bernard Lewis said that Europe (or the EU?) is predominantely Muslim before the end of the century. . . but don't tell this man, he's likely to convert. . .

There are 3 relevant statistics that are needed here for the next N years:

1) the ratio of voting-eligible Muslims in the EU to voting-eligible non-Muslims, regardless of origin.

2) the ratio of available combatants, male 15-50 between Muslims and non-Muslims in the various EU countries.

3) the number of nuclear weapons held by EU countries on the date that #2 exceeds 1:1.

NB that various discounts and adjustments can be made for the relative combat-willingness of a population.

Also, the Jihadis will not act until they can take down or vote down sufficient EU countries to sustain critical mass. (I.e. They would not start on the Netherlands alone, but if they could take France, that alone might be sufficient given France's nuclear arsenal + ICBM / SSBN capability).

If the Muslims can be patient (for decades) then they will own the EU outright simply by their 6+ birthrate while the EU rate is at or below 1.5.

The combination of Wahibbi Clerics, cultural separatism, and growing EU xenophobic intolerance will keep the next 2 generations of Muslims unassimilated.

BTW: If all the Muslims in the EU moved to one country, they could possibly overtake it now ... just imagine another generation from now.

We've been seeng these graphs for decades in the U.S. Generally they bcome Westernized within a generation and their brthrate drops.

The problem is Europe has a philosophy of "multiculturism," which translates to Muslims as "dhimmitude." They will not Westernize, and Europeans are going to have a very frightening and unpleasant future to look forward to.

Well, there are maybe 12-13 million muslims in the EU. According to the graph, the ratio of muslims to "ethnic Europeans" is 15%. That means 87 million "ethnic Europeans". Now, there are actually 450 million people living in the EU - who the heck are those 350 million non-muslim, non ethnic Europeans then???? And aren't they by their sheer number a much bigger treat to those precious "ethnic Europeans" than the muslims ever could dream of to be? Sorry, Dan, but the graph doesn't make any sense at all.

(Note to the accidental European reader. This thread isn't really about Europe. It is about American exceptionalism: America as the sole guardian of the Western civilization. Meanwhile, the decadent old world is flooded by the muslim tsunami.)

Recognizing that I'm echoing comments made above, this is a nonsense comparison and a meaningless chart. "European" is a discrete ethnicity? (If contintental boundaries create ethnicities, is Russell Crowe a member of the Australian race?)

And if we can compare "ethnic Europeans" to "Muslims," what sort of valid conclusions can we draw from a comparison of Lutherans and blacks?

Most Europeans have rejected Christianity, and now are/soon to be getting what they wish for - destruction. Of course America has rejected the true God under the guise of serving God, and will receive the cup of the wrath of God too.

20 or 30 years from now, if conditions in Europe are as implied (high retiree obligations, sharia co-equal to civil law) then 'white' productive age Europeans will emigrate enmasse to the anglophone nations (mainly USA) that will have them.

So the population inflection point could come well before the demographic tipping point.

The high projection shows the rate of population increase itself increasing over time. Isn't this highly unlikely, barring extreme liberalization of immigration laws? The fertility of the Muslim population in Europe should drop over time, as we've seen in virtualy every society that transitions into an environment of urbanity and secularism. Iran's birth rate is low, for example, and I think that of many Middle Eastern countries is as well. And won't Africa and the Middle East eventually run out of young people to send to Europe anyways? Global population should drop sometime in the next 50 years.

It might be interesting for you to visit a decent research library and look at some American popular journalism from the late-19th and early-20th century. Much hand-wringing over how white America was going to incorporate all the dirty, non-white Papists pouring into the country from southern and eastern Europe (and from Ireland).

@Chris Bray: Sorry, but yours is a typical American response of incomprehension about Europe. First, America is based on an idea, Europe is based on ethnicity. You and I may not like the latter, but that's how it is. Secondly, the Irish, Italians, Poles, what have you, were all Christians: Catholics integrating into a protestant society of immigrants. Europe is a secular post-Christian continent of ethnicities, where nationalism is always under the surface, importing Muslims. *It does not mix.* To keep some semblance of order Western European countries increasingly trade personal liberties for greater government security powers. Any liberal, classical or East Coast, worth their salt should be very concerned about this.

"I guess it depends what you consider low. Iran's birthrate is 17.1 births/1,000 population, compared to 14.13 in the US, and 10.88 in the UK."

The real figure to watch, though, isn't the crude birth rate but the total fertility rate(TFR),which is the average no of children born to women during their reproductive years.

Iran's TFR is currently sitting at 1.88. Which is well below the replacement rate of 2.1.

Incidentally 2 of the 3 North African countries which have traditionally provided muslim immigrants for france are also below replacement rates. And the third one (morocco) is dropping sharply towards replacement rate.

Even if the Muslim TFR rate drops below 2.1 inside Europe (and it hasn't as yet), demographic momentum (a known effect, not a rhetorical device) will increase the Muslim population much faster than the ethnic European rate for decades to come.

Another point to remember is that even if TFR in neighbouring Muslim countries drops below 2.1, immigration will still occur if the wealth gap is wide enough. Albania has a low TFR but thousands of people are still leaving. The fundamentalist/socialist character of most Muslim economies will ensure stagnation in the near future, so even if European economic growth is anemic the gap will remain. And people will jump across it.

In regards to culturale, a previous writer was correct in stating that - unlike in the US - 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims are more likely to be radical and unassimilated. This will eventually provoke a backlash from ethnic Europeans, further deepening the divide. If some sort of compromise is not adopted, a fading European population may, in several decades time, turn to pogroms as the solution.

Don't think it can't happen again.

Above all, remember that trend lines are always suspect. Linear extrapolation is the first mistake made in projection. Changes in Muslim behaviour, in ethnic European birth rates, and in culture, may completely change the equation. Europeans are, if anything, adaptable. Change comes faster than most people realize, and democracies can solve many social problems given some time.

If democracy takes root in the Middle East, there is reason to think the migration ratio might be on the low end. People don't leave their native countries if they live in democracies where they have a shot at making it. There are many in Europe who do not like this migration of Muslims and I wish they would put two and two together and realize how useful President Bush's liberation strategy is to their interests.

Here is another thought: If Europe needs immigrants and doesn't like the kind they are getting, what is to stop them from opening the spigots from other parts of the world? Philippines is a good candidate, and Latin America is one big disaster. Almost every country there is swinging left, from soft-left like Brasil to Castro-left like Venezuela. Chile, Uruguay, Brasil, Argentina, Bolivia, Panama, Ecuador, Venezuela - every single one of these is an economic disaster in the making if not reality because socialism doesn't work. It is guaranteed to fatten bureaucrats and impoverish the people in the end. Mexico and Nicaragua are about to swing left, too, and there are many people who are afraid. (Chile and Panama are very mild cases, Bolivia and Argentina are unusually disturbing - as is Venezuela). There are a couple exceptions - Peru, Paraguay, El Salvador and Colombia, but all of those have problems of their own and reasonably big potential immigration pools as well. All of these countries have growing, youthful populations who don't haved a chance in hell of getting hired in their own countries.

These people have fairly strong European, African and Indigenous heritage. They all want the heck out of their messed up, hopelessly sad countries.

Wouldn't they make a better pool of immigrants than people from hostile Muslim states who do not adapt well?

What I don't understand is what is stopping Europe from importing the kinds of immigrants who will cause the least amount of trouble? I don't understand why they can't stop Islamic immigration if they don't like it the way it is going and what it is bringing.

Some interesting numbers. Let's assume for argument's sake they are approximately correct.

Of the @53 million European Muslims, the great majority (about 35 million) are in countries that have always had large Muslim populations, and the majority of these are in Russia. This certainly has implications for Russia, but these probably should be considered separately from the implications of growing Muslim populations in the rest of Europe.

Of the remaining European Muslims, most are in just two countries, France and Germany. In addition, some individual smaller countries (e.g. the Netherlands) have large numbers of Muslims relative to their overall population. But to the extent this is a problem for Europe, it is not generalized but rather localized. It is probably worth observing that most minorities anywhere tend to concentrate in specific locations, and in this case (as far as I know) Western European Muslims tend to concentrate in major urban areas. It is worth considering what the implications of this are.

Finally, the numbers given do not differentiate among Muslims. Naturally the religious connection between people from different countries and economic circumstances can be significant, especially I should think among the young. That doesn't mean there are no differences between German Turks and Algerian expatriates in France. It is probably a mistake to generalize about the ability and willingness of European Muslims to assimilate, especially since differences among Muslim immigrants is not the only factor -- the willingness of European populations to encourage (or in some cases insist upon) assimilation is an important factor as well.

I'm not saying either that this issue is not a problem for Europe or that it is a dire emergency. Population migrations are often complex phenomena that can only be properly evaluated if examined in detail.

Ethnicity is itself an idea. "Germany" was created as a nation-state in the second half of the 19th century, less than a century before it aggressively turned against a religious community that was purportedly diminishing the purity of its otherwise singular volk; people who had thought of themselves as Prussians or Bavarians only needed a few decades to become "German."

Nineteenth century processes also created "Frenchmen," for a quick second example.

In America, ethnicity has sometimes trumped the "idea." The Cherokee were slave-owning Christians, with a constitution and a tripartite government, before white Georgians demanded that they be removed as an unassimilable element.

Or do you define "ethnicity" differently? How have you assembled this category of ethnic Europeans? (And, again, if "ethnic Europeans" and "Muslims" are mutually exclusive categories, how do you account for Bosnia?)

I think it's smart for U.S. liberals to detest Christians. Liberals will get along much better with Euromuslims who gain control over Europe's nuclear arsenals. That'll show those intolerant Christians.

The birth rate in European countries has been dropping for the last 40 years. The birth rate among Muslem immigrants in Europe has been climbing for 30 years. You dont need a graph or need to be a mathematician to figure out that the Muslem population will grow while the other "ethnic"European groups will shrink. Why does the Left, worldwide, have such a hard time with basic math. The true issue is whether or not Muslems in Europe will cast down Wahabism and move forward into the future. The murder of children and women will not advance the human race, nor will name calling from either side.

2Hotel9, I don't think Daniel Drezner is part of the worldwide Left, nor do I think he has that hard time with basic math. The reason he approvingly linked to the phoney graph was purely ideological (one of Dan's Instapundit-ish moments, actually).

The graph isn't that hard to follow, but perhaps this will focus things better:
By 2015, the majority of the under-18 in the Netherlands will be Muslim. Other western EU countries will all follow over the course of the next decade+.
These groups are NOT being assimilated in the same manner as earlier immigrant groups have been in the U.S.
Note Sarcelles. This demographic has implications for crime, then political stability.

Sigh. Well, here is an article written by someone who actually knows something about the subject. Especially the "Why do people argue that Muslims will be taking over Europe?" part should be enlightening.

The Group Muslims in Britain (MIB) is such named because there are very few Islamics that see themselves as British Muslims.

The utter failure to assimilate is mostly caused by their religion. Why give a job to someone who needs multiple 30 minute breaks during the day? I'm leaving these (UK) shores for the white havens of America, many have already gone and a vast number are to follow. The UK is lost.

Rob Read: "I'm leaving these (UK) shores for the white havens of America, many have already gone and a vast number are to follow. The UK is lost."

You know, Rob, there's a precedent and a solution that I bet you'd be happy to embrace. Other Europeans have felt this deep fear that their ethnic purity was being contaminated by the members of a religious community, and they set out to purify the continent. Or is that not what you mean?